Your "argument" went like this:
"You have been proven wrong on your believed reason for transsexuality. Hence, you can not be sure about wanting SRS because you can not be sure about your identity.

Dear god the prior post has exactly what i said....you even quoted it.

EVERY time you have been proven wrong (and it is a heck of a lot of times for somebody in a queue to get bits chopped off.......personally id wanna be 100% certain of my facts before such a operation) you have just changed the argument or changed how your initial claim is defined....not a female brain?, you change how YOU define female brain ect ect.

You also confirm that later on when you "reason" why you would deny it to me:

I honestly do not think you are objective enough to make the decision about SRS for yourself and think you should be denied it until you are more emptionally stable.

That clearly referred to your claim that my proposed cause is wrong, yet that has nothing to do with my being sure about myself, as i explained repeatedly.

Actually it clearly refers to me thinking you are emotionally unstable and cannot think rationally on the subject. Making absurd claims about having a female brain is a symptom along with your later denial of doing so and attempt to move the goal posts, but it is not the core problem mearly a symptom.

How can you post 2 quotes to my exact comments and then reinterpret them and make a silly statment claiming something else?. Are you incapable of addrssing the actual comment and need to construct you own so you can actually make a argument?.

You have no evidence from which you can reasonably conclude that i am not sure about myself, hence it is based on prejudice either way.

It is based on my experiance with you and your tactics regarding the truth on this subject.

There is, because you assume that i am not sure about myself out of the blue. It is a judgment without information - a prejudice.

This thread is full of evidence of what i and others consider your emotional instability regarding the subject.

Any backup for that by actual links and quotes?
Besides, even if that is true, then your appeal to all his other work is still pointless.

If it was not true you would be posting a rebuttal as well as not trying to dismiss the truth with a feeble excuse.

Got any refutation other than "lulz"?

That he made it up?, that the APA and DSM are incompetant or part of a conspiracy to abuse children?, because that is what your "made it up" requires for it to be true.

Documented by what?

You know the documents you CLAIM to have reciently read about the "transgender narrative"...you know in your last post you refered to reading them?...THOSE...LOL.

And i would love to see your proof that i lied to my psychologist.

Considerably more believeable than your claim the APA and DSM are part of a cover up to abuse children...

Because there is just no way for you to know that - you just conclude it out of your prejudice.

That's just ignorant. Because someone is lying in a very specific case (not that i am), you can not conclude that that person always lies. Another prejudice.

A logical progression.

And again, you ignoring what i actually wrote. Such as:

And i originally did not know about "transgender narrative" - the only reason why i am reading up on the whole science of transsexuality is because bigoted people like to distort it in order to justify their hate and prejudice towards transsexual people.

Oh, wait, you respond to that - with an argument from personal incredulity.

You mean the narrative you ask for documentation of above?......i guess you already have it.....

And we are all aware of your revisionist history/story telling.........

Yes it is. Because a prejudice is not necessarily a bad thing. Everyone has them.
You could argue that calling someone a prejudist is a bad thing, of course.
But since you do not consider calling all transsexual people liars, i hardly think this is too extreme or unwarranted. And since you are repeatedly judging people without any evidence at all, i can present empirical proof that you have prejudices.

FAIL.

In this very post you confirm that there does exist a "transgender narrative" and you have read it, hence it exists, it is used by transexuals and i clearly say that i am not accusing ALL (also clearly stated in posts above).

For somebody who screams about research you do god awful job even when the real facts are in the very same thread, page and sometimes even post....

Actually it clearly refers to me thinking you are emotionally unstable and cannot think rationally on the subject. Making absurd claims about having a female brain is a symptom along with your later denial of doing so and attempt to move the goal posts, but it is not the core problem mearly a symptom.

As evidenced by nothing but your prejudice.
Because when you are judging a persons emotional stability based on nothing but a single internet thread, you do not have nearly enough information to make such a conclusion.

It is based on my experiance with you and your tactics regarding the truth on this subject.

In other words, nothing but your personal opinion.
Or in yet other words, nothing at all. You are not even showing where i am supposedly emotional instable or demonstrate that i am not sure about my identity.

This thread is full of evidence of what i and others consider your emotional instability regarding the subject.

And where is it? And who are you to conclude that?
Armchair internet psychology doesn't work.

If it was not true you would be posting a rebuttal as well as not trying to dismiss the truth with a feeble excuse.

I can not rebut nothing. And nothing is exactly what you have provided. No evidence for anything at all, just appeals to authority.

Got any refutation other than "lulz"?

That he made it up?, that the APA and DSM are incompetant or part of a conspiracy to abuse children?, because that is what your "made it up" requires for it to be true.

Other than "lulz" or strawmen? Anything?

You know the documents you CLAIM to have reciently read about the "transgender narrative"...you know in your last post you refered to reading them?...THOSE...LOL.

And where do these documents show that a majority of transwomen is completely lying about their lives?
Yes, sure, many psychologists demand that their patients fit completely into the transgender narrative. Sexist psychologists like Zucker. And that pressure can lead patients to lie about certain things - but even that doesn't mean that they make up their complete life history. You just take some critizism of the transgender narrative and distort it until it fit's your prejudice.
But you have no evidence at all that a majority of transwomen is lying about this by default, especially when there is no need. That's just your prejudice.

Considerably more believeable than your claim the APA and DSM are part of a cover up to abuse children...

Ah, a red herring. Because one has nothing to do with the other. And it's also a strawman to boot - so its a red straw herring. Doesn't sound edible to me.

As i said, prejudice. Because armchair internet psychology does not work.

A logical progression.

No, that's not a logical progression. That's baseless speculation - just because something happens once, you can not conclude that it happens all the time. Especially not if you are talking about a completely different environment (anonymous hateful internet people VS nice, decent people in real life).

You mean the narrative you ask for documentation of above?......i guess you already have it.....

And we are all aware of your revisionist history/story telling.........

How can it be revisionist? Did you know me half a year ago? Did i state somewhere that i started my transition by jumping into the science?
If neither is the case, it can not be revisionist. Other than in your mind, that is.

In this very post you confirm that there does exist a "transgender narrative" and you have read it, hence it exists, it is used by transexuals and i clearly say that i am not accusing ALL (also clearly stated in posts above).

And another strawman.
I never said that there is a transgender narrative. You are just lying trough your teeth again.
What i AM saying that your prejudiced claim that all transwomen are lying to fit that narrative is WRONG. And just because you say that you do not accuse all after you have been accused of doing so means squat - because that could be actual revisionism.
But even if that is true, you still take something you must consider to be universally true and apply it to me - because you have no other basis to apply it to me at all, given that you now nothing about my therapy sessions.

For somebody who screams about research you do god awful job even when the real facts are in the very same thread, page and sometimes even post....

I could be the utmost unscientific retard in the universe and everything else, that still doesn't free you from backing up your claims with actual evidence.

Not only did you not back up your Zucker-appeal, but you also conclude that i am mentally ill and not capable of making decisions on my own based on no valid evidence whatsoever. You simply have no argument at all, because appeals to authority and ad-hominem attacks against me are no valid arguments.

Mike, 35 pages, it has to be funny. Otherwise, if you come here and you don't find anything to get amused with, then deep down there, you're terribly sad and you need lots of hugs and affection, or you are a sadomasochist, and then you need plenty of hugs as well, just not the same type.

Serafina wrote:As evidenced by nothing but your prejudice.
Because when you are judging a persons emotional stability based on nothing but a single internet thread, you do not have nearly enough information to make such a conclusion.

Based on your multiple examples in this thread noticed and mentioned by several ppl fyi.

In other words, nothing but your personal opinion.

Based on FACTS.

And where do these documents show that a majority of transwomen is completely lying about their lives?

Show me where i claim majority......yet another addition/exhageration from the king of the strawmen.

I never said that there is a transgender narrative. You are just lying trough your teeth again.

So two posts ago when you clearly say you are reading into it you were lying?.

You really need to look at your short term memory because you first claim to be studying it then now you shoot yourself in the foot claiming that you never said it existed.....

You do this a lot along with creating strawmen and other crap so you can actually have something to argue against, they atre interesting creations but all they really do is make you look like either a compulsive liar or just a total nutter to anybody reading them.

Now go and dig out some evidence.

After a thorough and in depth search i have found no evidence that the APA or the DSM are particapating in a cover up to abuse children, zuckers works, accolades and results stand on their merits until you can prove they are false and he is a child abuser.

Based on your multiple examples in this thread noticed and mentioned by several ppl fyi.

Hey, guess what:Internet psychology still doesn't work!
Your only source for that claim is your prejudice that transwomen are generally liars. Even a trained psychologist could not conclude the things you claim to been "proven" from this thread. You are not only ignorant of politeness, manners, neurology, embryology, general science, transsexuality in general, morality and logic - but also of psychology as well. No one who has any understanding of psychology at all would do what you just defended. It is utterly impossible to judge a persons personality solely from observing her behavior a single time in a single environment. And much less so if all you have is the written word, since that naturally and inevitably conveys much less information such as emotion, body language or even speech pattern.

Real psychologists have years of training and still need multiple hour-long (or half-hour, it varies) sessions to get a diagnosis. These sessions include heavy inquiry and other stimuli.
And yet you believe that an uneducated gardener can judge a persons whole personality based on a fraction of that information. And if you are that ignorant of even the most basic principles of psychology, i do not believe that you are fit to judge anything about psychology at all. And since you do not rigorously support your claims with evidence, all we have are claims by a person who would not even pass a eleventh-grade psychology course.
Or in simpler terms, your claims are absolutely unbelievable and wholly unsupported.

But go on. Show the psychological criteria to conclude that i am not sure about my gender identity and that i am emotionally instable. And then explain how you can conclude that from observing a single situation and without any background information at all.

Based on FACTS.

Based on insufficient facts even if you had the education to interpret them properly. And you do not have that education.

Show me where i claim majority......yet another addition/exhageration from the king of the strawmen.

Ah, so when you were talking in widely generalist terms, you only meant a small minority. Gotcha.

So two posts ago when you clearly say you are reading into it you were lying?.

That should be "NO transgender narrative". Which is obvious from the context.

After a thorough and in depth search i have found no evidence that the APA or the DSM are particapating in a cover up to abuse children, zuckers works, accolades and results stand on their merits until you can prove they are false and he is a child abuser.

And yet again, more ignorance.
You are supposed to find evidence that
-Zuckers method and hypothesis is internationally accepted
-that he does proper long-term studies
-that he has evidence that his indoctrination causes no harm
-that his success rate is not just natural development, as i have shown
-that his findings are independently verified
And even then, you have only shown that there could be a strong nurture-element in the development of transsexuality. That still doesn't justify your view that transwomen are not women or that you want to deny them SRS or anything else of your drivels.

It has been bang on in regards to figuring you out so far, within 2 or 3 posts on SDN i fugured out you were a dude just from your posting, that is how all this started.

Your only source for that claim is your prejudice that transwomen are generally liars.

Again please show me my statment claiming generally liars....

Based on insufficient facts even if you had the education to interpret them properly. And you do not have that education.

You are a liar, you have been proven to be a liar....see those are FACTS.

Ah, so when you were talking in widely generalist terms, you only meant a small minority. Gotcha.

I was refering not to a majority nor a minority i was commenting on its existance and its considerable growth since the medical establishment set down guide lines for getting SRS..........let me guess its a coincedance right?.

That should be "NO transgender narrative". Which is obvious from the context.

Ok so you NEVER posted claiming you had a female brain in a mans body at the start of the thread and 3 or so posts ago you did not say you were reading into the "transgender narrative" so you could "deal with bigoted people"......

Thanks for more FACTS regarding your honesty on this subject...

You are supposed to find evidence that
-Zuckers method and hypothesis is internationally accepted

His appointment to the internationally accepted DSM...CHECK.

Your only argument against this is that the DSM selection board are incompetant or part of a cover up regarding child abuse.

-that he does proper long-term studies

That you will accept?........pointless as you will never accept it written accross the sky by god if it contradicts the obsession your mental illness forces you to believe.

-that he has evidence that his indoctrination causes no harm

His appointment to the APA and also internationally accepted DSM.....CHECK.

Obviously you have to now show that the APA/DSM are in a child abuse conspiracy or incompetant to refute me.

-that his success rate is not just natural development, as i have shown

I DEMAND YOU SHOW ME THE INDEPENDANT REPORT BY A SOURCE I WILL ACCEPT THAT CHECKED HIS WORK AND THOSE HE TREATED AND SHOWED THAT HIS RESULTS ARE FROM NATURAL DEVELOPMENT.

I DEMAND IT NOW OR YOU ARE PROVEN WRONG ON EVERYTHING EVER!!!!!.

(I am being you if you did not realise btw)

-that his findings are independently verified

His appointment to the APA and also internationally accepted DSM.....CHECK.

AGAIN you have to now show that the APA/DSM are in a child abuse conspiracy or incompetant to refute me.

And even then, you have only shown that there could be a strong nurture-element in the development of transsexuality.

TRANSLATION:

"WAAAA!!!! even if you post proof i will not accept it cos its not what i WANT to believe WAAAAA!!!!..."

That still doesn't justify your view that transwomen are not women or that you want to deny them SRS or anything else of your drivels.

You are not a woman and you will never be one unless you happen to be able to prove the existance of reincarnation. You are a mentally ill, emotionally unstable individual who has a deep seeded disatisfaction with his life and is looking for a soap box to preach from to try and force others to accept absurdities likely because it gives you a feeling of control and power you cannot gain any other way.

I doubt you are actually transgender, i doubt you have seen doctors and i doubt you are anything apart from lonely and angry boy looking for attention and somewhere to vent your frustration.

t has been bang on in regards to figuring you out so far, within 2 or 3 posts on SDN i fugured out you were a dude just from your posting, that is how all this started.

Except that i am not, as evidenced by an experienced psychologist.
Besides, that is circular reasoning: You say that you are accurate because you say that your predictions fit.

His appointment to the internationally accepted DSM...CHECK.

Which is not the same as his hypothesis being internationally accepted or his method internationally used.

That you will accept?........pointless as you will never accept it written accross the sky by god if it contradicts the obsession your mental illness forces you to believe.

In other words, there aren't any proper long-term studies.

His appointment to the APA and also internationally accepted DSM.....CHECK.

Not the same thing. Those are appeals to authority, not scientific studies.

I DEMAND YOU SHOW ME THE INDEPENDANT REPORT BY A SOURCE I WILL ACCEPT THAT CHECKED HIS WORK AND THOSE HE TREATED AND SHOWED THAT HIS RESULTS ARE FROM NATURAL DEVELOPMENT.

That a majority of GID-diagnosed children develop a gender identity that accords with their sex?Your holy DSM itself says so.
To quote the relevant parts:

Only a very small number of children with gender Identity Disorder will continue to have symptoms that meet criteria for Gender Identity Disorder in later adolescence or adulthood.

By late adolescence or adulthood, about three-quarters of boys who had a childhood history of Gender Identity Disorder report a homosexual or bisexual orientation, but without concurrent Gender Identity Disorder.

There. I can post evidence, while yours consist of wild prejudice-fueled fantasies.

I DEMAND IT NOW OR YOU ARE PROVEN WRONG ON EVERYTHING EVER!!!!!.

That's not how it works.

His appointment to the APA and also internationally accepted DSM.....CHECK.

That is a textbook-appeal to authority, not a scientific study.

Again, nothing but appeals to authority and pointless personal attacks. I suggest that you move to the bible belt, you would fit in much better there.

Except that i am not, as evidenced by an experienced psychologist.
Besides, that is circular reasoning: You say that you are accurate because you say that your predictions fit.

I was totally correct about you deal with it.

You CLAIM you are a tanswoman or soon will be, you will never be a real woman.

Which is not the same as his hypothesis being internationally accepted or his method internationally used.

So what?, the fact that his is one of a few treatments means NO single treatment is internationally accepted or internationally used.

In other words it was a stupid request and a loaded question.

In other words, there aren't any proper long-term studies.

Not the same thing. Those are appeals to authority, not scientific studies.

There are his studies and reports accepted by the APA and DSM boards and he posted accept them or prove the APA/DSM are complicit with child abusers or incompetant for promoting him.

There. I can post evidence, while yours consist of wild prejudice-fueled fantasies.

Your wish for a connection to the stats and Zuckers work IS a prejudice-fueled fantasy.

A hand wave towards unrelated statistics is not evidence, do what you request of me and show a study on Zuckers work that proves his results are from a natural growth.

Still it does prove that transgenders are not "born female in a male body".......no wonder the suicide rates even AFTER SRS are still high id say the issue is emotional instability rather than a gender issue.

That's not how it works.

Welcome to your tactics.

That is a textbook-appeal to authority, not a scientific study.

No it is a point in fact that requires the APA and DSM boards be complicit in child abuse or incompetant.

I suggest that you move to the bible belt, you would fit in much better there.

WOW back to the insult game...fine.

And after seeing what you claim is your picture i suggest you join a rock band as the main MALE lead singer, a meatloaf parody band would be perfect, can you sing "Bat out of hell?".

You CLAIM you are a tanswoman or soon will be, you will never be a real woman.

Not only are you distorting what i am saying again, but that is - and i have to use that word - sheer, unadultered hateful bigotry again.

So what?, the fact that his is one of a few treatments means NO single treatment is internationally accepted or internationally used.

In other words, you concede that his treatment is not internationally accepted.
Besides, that in your last post was also an appeal to authority.

There are his studies and reports accepted by the APA and DSM boards and he posted accept them or prove the APA/DSM are complicit with child abusers or incompetant for promoting him.

As per, ironically, you asserting so.
Either way, it stays an appeal to authority. And if you do not get the difference between peer review and independent verification, you have no scientific education whatsoever.

Your wish for a connection to the stats and Zuckers work IS a prejudice-fueled fantasy.

A hand wave towards unrelated statistics is not evidence, do what you request of me and show a study on Zuckers work that proves his results are from a natural growth.

Do you not get this?
Others observe that most GID-diagnosed children develop in a certain way. Zucker has a near-identical percentage of his patients that develop the same way - but he claims that it is due to his treatment.
But if your treatment does not deviate in result from an untreated result, then your treatment is worthless.
It MIGHT be that Zuckers sexist methods are slightly more "successful", but his claim of 80+% is clearly bogus.

Still it does prove that transgenders are not "born female in a male body".......no wonder the suicide rates even AFTER SRS are still high id say the issue is emotional instability rather than a gender issue.

That was just low, and you should know it.
Oh, and there is no such proof. Because the GID in children does not have to be related to transsexuality at all - in fact, it is often related to homosexuality.

No it is a point in fact that requires the APA and DSM boards be complicit in child abuse or incompetant.

Appeal to authority. By definition a fallacy. And not the same as independent evidence.

WOW back to the insult game...fine.

That was friendly advice. If you want your children to grow up in an enviornment where they will most likely never meet a transwomen (a fear that you previously expressed), you have to move there - or to a third-world country.

And after seeing what you claim is your picture i suggest you join a rock band as the main MALE lead singer, a meatloaf parody band would be perfect, can you sing "Bat out of hell?".

Ah, more - and the word is 100% appropriate - bigotry.

And yes, i know that i used "bigotry" two times here. That is because there is no other appropriate word to describe Kors opinion and action. If there is any such word in the english language, please enlighten me.

Not only are you distorting what i am saying again, but that is - and i have to use that word - sheer, unadultered hateful bigotry again.

Distortions are your area, and accuracy is not bigotry.

In other words, you concede that his treatment is not internationally accepted.

I point out that your question was loaded and worthless under the circumstances.

Either way, it stays an appeal to authority.

There are his studies and reports accepted by the APA and DSM boards and he posted accept them or prove the APA/DSM are complicit with child abusers or incompetant for promoting him.

Do you not get this?
Others observe that most GID-diagnosed children develop in a certain way.

Zucker has a near-identical percentage of his patients that develop the same way - but he claims that it is due to his treatment.

But if your treatment does not deviate in result from an untreated result, then your treatment is worthless.

It MIGHT be that Zuckers sexist methods are slightly more "successful", but his claim of 80+% is clearly bogus.

1. "Others" may or may not be right.
2. "Near" identical is not the same as identical and Zucker only accepts the most pronounced cases of GID to treat, essentially the 20% from your study.
3. It is not my treatment, and as you pint out they are not identical nor does he choose just every GID child only the most pronounced.
4. You have no proof at all is is bogus that is just your wish.

That was just low, and you should know it.
Oh, and there is no such proof. Because the GID in children does not have to be related to transsexuality at all - in fact, it is often related to homosexuality.

So in your post directly above you say its directly related in 20% of the children but now you require it to be unrelated?...you remain as consistant with your absurdity as ever.

Appeal to authority. By definition a fallacy. And not the same as independent evidence.

A appeal to conspiracy and incompetance by two governing bodies of the medical establishment is the absurdity.

That was friendly advice. If you want your children to grow up in an enviornment where they will most likely never meet a transwomen (a fear that you previously expressed), you have to move there - or to a third-world country.

Friendly advise?...yea right.

Hey and a distortion about the changing room issue regarding young children........very weak.

Ah, more - and the word is 100% appropriate - bigotry.

Cos i think you look like a male rock singer?.

Just cos i do not like you and say so and reply to your insults with insults does not = bigotry, you need to understand that me saying what you look like is not 1% bigotry let alone 100%.

And yes, i know that i used "bigotry" two times here. That is because there is no other appropriate word to describe Kors opinion and action. If there is any such word in the english language, please enlighten me.

Except that that was not accuracy. You are contradicting science here, you based that statement solely on your hateful prejudice.

I point out that your question was loaded and worthless under the circumstances.

No, it wasn't. It was an attempt to reveal your appeal to authority. And it worked, no matter how much you deny it.

There are his studies and reports accepted by the APA and DSM boards and he posted accept them or prove the APA/DSM are complicit with child abusers or incompetant for promoting him.

Just another appeal to authority.

1. "Others" may or may not be right.

You are now arguing against the ICD and DSM IV. By your logic, those two must be right because they are internationally accepted. By my logic, they are refering to multiple independent studies. Either way, this is just wishful thinking and ignoring evidence that doesn't fit your prejudice.

2. "Near" identical is not the same as identical and Zucker only accepts the most pronounced cases of GID to treat, essentially the 20% from your study.

Given the high variablity in psychology, 10% can easily be attributed to errors of measurement.
And if he only selects the most "pronounced" cases, his results are even more pathetic - because they have been artificially altered to appear more favorable.

3. It is not my treatment, and as you pint out they are not identical nor does he choose just every GID child only the most pronounced.

You fail at basic reading comprehension again. I was referring to treatments in general.

4. You have no proof at all is is bogus that is just your wish.

I have the ICD and DSM and mutlipte independent studies. That is hardly "no proof at all". You are just in denial now.

So in your post directly above you say its directly related in 20% of the children but now you require it to be unrelated?...you remain as consistant with your absurdity as ever.

And again, you fail.
GID is a broad, complex diagnosis. It is often given to homosexual children. I am simply noting that a majority of children with GID are not transsexual - and thus, you can not assume that if the majority of your patients turn out to be not transsexual, you can not attribute it to your "treatment" - since they were never transsexual at all.

It's like looking at a mild fever. Some can indicate something serious, but most just go away on their own. Now you take an ineffective treatment (such as homeopathy) and give it to a number of children with mild fever. And since most get better, you claim that your treatment is 80% effective. But that claim is bogus, since it had nothing to do with the "treatment". And even if you get slightly higher results, that can be attributed to other things such as a low case number, errors of measurement or just plain old placebo effect.

A appeal to conspiracy and incompetance by two governing bodies of the medical establishment is the absurdity.

I never made such an appeal. I merely say that no matter how famous a scientists is, appealing to his authority doesn't make him any more correct.

Hey and a distortion about the changing room issue regarding young children........very weak.

You said it yourself - you were afraid that your children (or children in general?) might see a transwoman.

Cos i think you look like a male rock singer?.

Because you are personally insulting people based on their biology. And also because that is absolutely not true.

Yup we call it "ACCURACY".

The use of the word "bigotry"? Yes, i call that accurate and have been doing so since page one.
Calling a transwoman male or "not female"? No, that contradicts all respected science on it - including Zucker&Co.

Serafina wrote:Except that that was not accuracy. You are contradicting science here, you based that statement solely on your hateful prejudice.

It is accuracy, you are not a real woman, you never were a rral woman and you never will be, at best you will be a transwoman at worst a mutilated man.

As i do not want to seem like i am forcing you il let you choose whitch.

No, it wasn't. It was an attempt to reveal your appeal to authority. And it worked, no matter how much you deny it.

Rubbish it was a pointless loaded question that can be applied to any type of treatment because there will be somebody some where that does not use or agree with it, it was a absurd request.

You are now arguing against the ICD and DSM IV. By your logic, those two must be right because they are internationally accepted.

1. I am not arguing against them i am arguing about you connecting dots.

2. YOU WERE THE ONE DEMANING FOR INTERNATIONAL ACCEPTANCE AS PROOF, SHOWN IN THE VERY COMMENT ABOVE NOT ME......DEAR GOD YOU ARE INSANE.

And if he only selects the most "pronounced" cases, his results are even more pathetic

80% cures from the 20% you claim go on to be transgendered and a high suicide risk?, id say he is saving lives.

ICD and DSM and mutlipte independent studies. That is hardly "no proof at all". You are just in denial now.

You have connected dots that do not exist, and even if they did it brings us back to the fact that he is helping 80% while other methods that encorage the GID behaviour would be harming 80%....after all that was your argument right? that encoraging the wrong gender causes harm well grats if your connect the dots crap is correct encoraging the GID behaviour must then do harm to the 80% that are not transgender.

I look forwards to seeing you argue against your prior claim of encoraging the wrong identity causing long term harm or harm in later life........

GID is a broad, complex diagnosis.

And yet you think that the most noted individual in the field is oversimplifying it when it is clearly pointed out that he is doing quite the opposite in regards to how he chooses those to treat to make sure they are most likely to become transgender.....

I am simply noting that a majority of children with GID are not transsexual - and thus, you can not assume that if the majority of your patients turn out to be not transsexual, you can not attribute it to your "treatment" - since they were never transsexual at all.

That is entirely dependant on your criteria for treatment, a strict criteria means you are treating those who are more likely to be come transgendered rather than the general border line types.

I never made such an appeal. I merely say that no matter how famous a scientists is, appealing to his authority doesn't make him any more correct.

Yet another lie, you have already made claims about him being on the board of the APA and "buddies" in the profession giving him a promotion and these positions in a prior post.

You said it yourself - you were afraid that your children (or children in general?) might see a transwoman.

Yet another oversimplification and distortion, still it is not the first time transgenders have distorted facts about children to attack somebody who will npot think exactly how they demand.

Because you are personally insulting people based on their biology.

I am insulting you cos of what you look like simply because you insulted me, i suppose you being FUGLY even as a dude is tecnically biology though.

And also because that is absolutely not true.

You look like a young meatloaf in a frock, or at the very least a male rock fan......buy a Led Zeppelin's or Motörhead T-shirt and do a bit of headbanging, you would be great at the "whiplash" technique. You can always get chopped up and go from a fertile dude to a sterile transwoman later if it does not work out...

It is accuracy, you are not a real woman, you never were a rral woman and you never will be, at best you will be a transwoman at worst a mutilated man.

As i do not want to seem like i am forcing you il let you choose whitch.

Even more ignorance. Gender identity is not a matter of choice. If you had done actual research, you should know that (and no, Zuckers work doesn't say it's a choice either).

1. I am not arguing against them i am arguing about you connecting dots.

Their statement is accurate. It happens to coincide with Zuckers numbers.
The burden of proof is on you that Zucker achieves any actual "success". No such proof is provided, except appeals to authority.

80% cures from the 20% you claim go on to be transgendered and a high suicide risk?, id say he is saving lives.

Provide evidence for that assertion.

You have connected dots that do not exist, and even if they did it brings us back to the fact that he is helping 80% while other methods that encorage the GID behaviour would be harming 80%....after all that was your argument right? that encoraging the wrong gender causes harm well grats if your connect the dots crap is correct encoraging the GID behaviour must then do harm to the 80% that are not transgender.

I look forwards to seeing you argue against your prior claim of encoraging the wrong identity causing long term harm or harm in later life........

And more ignorance and strawmen.
My position has always been that gender identity is not a matter of choice. There is no scientific position that contradicts that. Even Zucker only claims that it is due to nurture factors - which is not a choice either. He also claims that homosexuality is due to these factors.
Given that i never claimed that gender identity is nurture-based, you can not encourage the wrong identity. You can only force someone to live in a wrong identity, but that doesn't bestow that identity onto that person. Indeed, that forced false identity is very common in transsexual people. The harder it is enforced, the harder an eventual coming-out and transition are. That can go as far as making them near-impossible, which causes enormous harm.
Hence, unless Zuckers hypothesis that transsexuality can be prevented (speaking of a cure is wrong, since his patients can not be described as transsexual according to his own theory) is proven, his practice is very likely to inflict harm on transsexual children.
In fact, we have a large body of observation to show that - since these practices were normal up until recently - "cross-sex" behavior was routinely severely suppressed by parents and environment. The results of that on the live of transsexual people are well-studied.

'This fact is also the best argument against Zuckers hypothesis. Just a few decades ago, Zuckers "treatment" was the standard in every western household - boys who play with dolls were punished or beaten by their parents and scorned by their peers etc. Zucker blames transsexuality largely on parents allowing boys to play with dolls and to display other female behavior - but a few decades ago, no one allowed that. And yet we have a large number of transsexual people who grew up during that time. Zucker offers absolutely no explanation for them. He claims that they are just overboard homosexuals or autogynophiliacs, but neither is supported by evidence - there are asexual transwomen and a large number of lesbian transwomen displays no autogynophilia.
He also offers no explanation for gay transmen, since those can not display autogynophilia by definition.
Also, autogynophilia can not be displayed in children since their sexuality is not yet developed in that way. But we have children who display GID or transsexuality in a non-tolerant environment. Zucker can not explain this either

The main criticism of Zuckers hypothesis is simply that it lacks explanatory value for important observations about transsexuality - namely, all transsexual people who did not grow up under the conditions he blames. Which happens to include all older transsexual people as well as many younger ones.

And yet you think that the most noted individual in the field is oversimplifying it when it is clearly pointed out that he is doing quite the opposite in regards to how he chooses those to treat to make sure they are most likely to become transgender.....

Another appeal to authority.
Given his methods inherent sexism (focus on stereotypcial gender roles), this claim is hardly outlandish.
And again you are ignoring the evidence used in the DSM IV and ICD, which specifically say that most cases of GID are not related to transsexuality at all.

That is entirely dependant on your criteria for treatment, a strict criteria means you are treating those who are more likely to be come transgendered rather than the general border line types.

So you are saying that children who are freely allowed to express themselves (a human right btw.) are "treated" in a way that is in any form comparable to Zuckers "treatment"? This is just absurd - you are now grasping at the straws of your own strawmen.

Yet another lie, you have already made claims about him being on the board of the APA and "buddies" in the profession giving him a promotion and these positions in a prior post.

Defending your appeal to authority doesn't make it a valid argument.
I respect the works of science. But the value of it is completely independent of the person who created it. Whether it is a famous scientists or a freshly graduated PHD, the worth of a work is solely judged by the amount of empirical evidence that backs it up.
Zuckers work is only backed up by his own research and by no independent studies.

Yet another oversimplification and distortion, still it is not the first time transgenders have distorted facts about children to attack somebody who will npot think exactly how they demand.

Yet another broad attack on all transsexual people.
Oh, wait, on "transgenders" - a non-defined term which happens to include transsexual people. In other words, you can not differentiate on a subject you have "discussed" for 35 pages.

I am insulting you cos of what you look like because you insulted me.

Yes, real sportsmanship. Insulting people for how they look. At least i limit myself on pointing out the blunders of my opponents in the actual thread in a rude way (and i am refraining from that here despite being constantly insulted), but you are attacking me for just not plain liking me, based on things that have nothing to do whatsoever with this thread.
In other words, you are using personal attacks and try to use them as ad hominem.

You look like a young meatloaf in a frock, or at the very least a male rock fan......buy a Led Zeppelin's or Motörhead T-shirt and do a bit of headbanging, you would be great at the "whiplash" technique. You can always get chopped up and go from a fertile dude to a sterile transwoman later if it does not work out...

Yet more personal insults.
Besides, i will still be able to have children who are biologically my own. Modern technology is just awesome like that.
Also, your ignorant assertion why i am transsexual is just hilarious (in a sad way) - given that it is contradicted by every single piece of research on it in the last half century.

Again, do you have anything to offer except personal insults, hate towards transsexual people and appeals to authority, spiced with ignorance of science?
If so, present it. If not, stop pretending.

Even more ignorance. Gender identity is not a matter of choice. If you had done actual research, you should know that (and no, Zuckers work doesn't say it's a choice either).

LTR.

It happens to coincide with Zuckers numbers.

No it does not.

The burden of proof is on you that Zucker achieves any actual "success". No such proof is provided, except appeals to authority.

Your claim your burden.

Provide evidence for that assertion.

I have provided as much as you have for yours.

'This fact is also the best argument against Zuckers hypothesis. Just a few decades ago, Zuckers "treatment" was the standard in every western household - boys who play with dolls were punished or beaten by their parents and scorned by their peers etc.

Lets just shorten that absurd strawman....

So you just claim that Zuckers treatment involves beating children?.

So a child beater and abuser supported by the APA and DSM?.

BYE BYE.....

Yes, real sportsmanship. Insulting people for how they look.

Do not post pictures of yourself if you do not want it pointed out.

At least i limit myself on pointing out the blunders of my opponents in the actual thread in a rude way.

Your strawmen creations to give you a excuse for a insult are not morally superior in any way.

But you are attacking me for just not plain liking me, based on things that have nothing to do whatsoever with this thread.

I do not like you because you are a insulting distorting manipulative liar and that is about you as a person, your desired gender, sexual preferances or foot size are irrelavant to those things.

And i learned those things about you in this thread, but it was nice of you to point out that my insults were not related to the subject of the thread clearing up the transgender hatered/bigot accusations you keep trying to spin.

Now do you honestly think you are going to change my mind about you or this subject by claiming conspiracies, child abuse or dreaming up connections?.

I can honestly say there is NOTHING you can post or say that i will believe after your absurd and disgusting claims, distortions and lies.

Left to right? Later? Long Term Relationship? Long Term research? Learn to Return? Long Term Romance? Love Trust Respect? Laser Target Rangefinder? Anything else?
Well, i can say that this makes as much sense as the rest of your post.

It happens to coincide with Zuckers numbers.

No it does not.

As per you saying so. But about 80% of all children happen to be not transsexual, and Zuckers lower success rate claims (if he actually claims it like that) happen to be 80%. That IS a coincidence and just a fact. You can argue about the conclusions, but not about facts. Another basic principle of science.

The burden of proof is on you that Zucker achieves any actual "success". No such proof is provided, except appeals to authority.

Your claim your burden.

No. You claim that he has a "success rate". Unless you retract that claim, it is your Burden of Proof.

I have provided as much as you have for yours.

Again, BOP. You have to fulfill it regardless of how much proof i provide (and i provided scientific facts against Zuckers "success" rate).

Lets just shorten that absurd strawman....

So you just claim that Zuckers treatment involves beating children?.

So a child beater and abuser supported by the APA and DSM?.

BYE BYE.....

Learn to read. I merely stated as a fact that beating children happened to be standard a few decades ago. That was not related to Zucker (tough there have been accusations that he encourages it).

Do not post pictures of yourself if you do not want it pointed out.

Yes, that's a real excuse.

Your strawmen creations to give you a excuse for a insult are not morally superior in any way.

'Given that i hardly use them for insults, that is just a non sequitur.

I do not like you because you are a lying insulting c*nt and that is about you as a person, your desired gender, sexual preferances or foot size are irrelavant to those things.

You can claim that. But your insults focus solely on these things (well, except the foot size). Which contradicts that statement.

And i learned those things about you in this thread, but it was nice of you to point out that my insults were not related to the subject of the thread clearing up the transgender hatered/bigot accusations you keep trying to spin.

Well, given that you have declared disgust and fear of transsexual people in the past and are hostile towards anyone saying that transwomen are women just like your wife is, i think these accusations are hardly unjustified.

Now do you honestly think you are going to change my mind about you or this subject by claiming conspiracies, child abuse or dreaming up connections?.

You?
No, people like you do not change their minds. They can not be convinced by arguments. You can try to convince a fundamentalist christian that homosexuality is okay all you like, you will never have any success. But you can still argue against him, lest he might infect others with his bigotry.
Your case is pretty similar.

I can honestly say there is NOTHING you can post or say that i will believe.

In other words, you dismiss my arguments out of hand. Not surprising at all.

Now, again - got anything but personal insults and appeals to authority?